/lit/ - Literature

>>10891394
Whether or not there are traits exhibited by different groups to varying extents has literally never been the question, the socioliogical issues being explored today are largely about
1) given that these identifiable, gendered traits (e.g. agreeableness) exist and are distributed among these populations along a spectrum—that is to say that although the distribution of agreeable people in each group is such that the average man is perhaps less agreeable than the average woman, that leaves ample room for any number of women to themselves be less agreeable than another given group of men—shouldn't we be looking to examine how those traits are imbued upon the members of our society and seek to be explicitly aware of what, how and why we do it, and
2) shouldn't we be concerned that a system that rewards gendered traits that exist outside the purview of the actual job at hand fundamentally fails at self-selecting towards a more capable society.

Peterson's answer to both questions, which he constantly sneaks into every other facet of his personal philosophy, appears to be "no" and "no," fighting vehemently for the established status quo as if it were the be-all end all final result of our millenia of purposeful societal exploration. And that I have to say "appears to be" really highlights his fucking dishonesty, because although invariably when he's left to his own devices this is exactly the thing that he'll romantically swing around but as soon as he's pressed on the points directly he is immediately reticent in admitting what it is exactly he believes what he's saying entails in a practical sense. He's all too quick to ensure that what he said doesn't actually mean what you're asking, and he's more than happy to point out that what he said is nebulous enough to not necessarily imply this or that, and then draws neat little lines around the borders of his musings, and then leaves it to his vulnerable audience to extrapolate the extremely obvious implications of his arguments but he will doggedly refuse to do so himself because when he lets others do it the ideas exist in a form that they cannot be directly addressed, and were he to do it himself he would eventually be forced to defend them explicitly which he cannot do because he is to his credit an honest intellectual thinking person and he wouldn't be able to contradict himself so plainly and live with it.

He lets his audience do that for him. And that's why he manages to maintain an air of academic prestige that doesn't even remotely rub off on the people who ascribe to his beliefs. He's just throwing thoughts out into the air and refusing to consider the answers, while his fans are doing the torrid work of actually processing his information and eating the associated shit that comes with it.